State v. . Summers
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The defendant and one Louisa Austin were indicted for fornication and adulteiy, and tried before Clark, Judge, at the August Term, 1887, of Iredell Superior Court.
Read the full summary
The defendant and one Louisa Austin were indicted for fornication and adulteiy, and tried before Clark, Judge, at the August Term, 1887, of Iredell Superior Court. The mother of the female defendant testified that the defendant Summers was and had been a married man; that he visited the house of the witness, with whom the female defendant lived — at first slyly, but for more than a year before the trial these visits were regularly and repeatedly made; that they bedded together two or three times a week; that sometimes the male defendant was drunken and violent; that he carried a pistol with…
1Opinion of the Court
Davis, J.,
(after stating the case). There was no error in the charge of his Honor as given, and none in refusing to charge as requested. It is difficult to conceive of a more wicked, unblushing violation of the law against fornication and adultery.
The evidence shows that the defendants were not married to each other, and that, beyond all doubt and with no attempt at concealment, they habitually associated, bedded and cohabited together, and this makes the defendant guilty of the offence charged.
If, at times, when the female defendant, from a sense of shame or any other reason, was not in a…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Concepcion v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
- State v. ReederSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- State v. AdcockSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1940
- State v. . DixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Concepcion v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.